Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Citing an assertion from Rules Committee ranking member David Dreier (Calif.) that "a vote for the rule is a vote for the Senate bill," the group wrote: "We believe it is accurate to state in public communications that the effect of a vote for any rule illustrated in [Dreier's memo] is a vote for the Senate bill and all of its provisions." Put simply: Republicans believe that House Democrats using the "deem and pass" maneuver in no way prohibits GOP candidates and party committees from attacking them for "voting" for the Senate legislation.

The letter along with House Republican leaders' vow to force a vote on the use of "deem and pass" is a reminder that GOPers believe the health care bill -- no matter the outcome of the vote later this week (or weekend) -- is something close to a silver bullet for them in the coming midterm elections. "The point here is that there is no cover for Democrats on this vote," said Ken Spain, communications director of the NRCC -- adding that the other side is "resorting to political and legislative trickery" to try and keep from being attacked in a campaign setting.

While all of the parliamentary jockeying is almost certain to be forgotten by voters by this fall (if it was ever noticed in that first place), Republicans want to make sure that targeted Democrats know that they will be held accountable for every nook and cranny of the Senate legislation whether or not they go on the record in support or opposition to it.

2. Congress' approval rating is starting to approach historic lows in two new national polls, a sign of the growing volatility in the electorate. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- released late Tuesday -- just 17 percent approved of the job Congress is doing while 77 percent disapproved. Since a mid-January NBC/WSJ survey, congressional disapproval has soared by 10 points while approval has dipped by four points.

"Memo from the American public to Congress: you stink," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart who conducted the poll along with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "There's no safe place."

With so much dissatisfaction directed toward Congress, the two parties remain in a deadlock. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 45 percent of people said they preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress while 42 percent said they wanted Republicans in charge of Congress -- numbers roughly unchanged from a late January survey that showed Democratic control with the support of 44 percent and Republican control with 42 percent backing. The latest weekly tracking poll from Gallup affirmed that division with 47 percent saying they preferred a generic Democratic candidate and 44 percent choosing a generic Republican. The closeness, however, is a significant change from Gallup's last tracking poll in advance of the 2006 midterm election where 51 percent chose a generic Democratic candidate and 40 percent opted for the generic Republican.

3. Former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff bested appointed Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado caucuses -- assuring himself the top ballot spot in the August primary and delivering him some measure of much-needed momentum.

With all precincts reporting, Romanoff took 51 percent to 42 percent for Bennet. On the Republican side, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, a Tea Party favorite, was in a dead heat with former lieutenant governor Jane Norton. Buck had been the underdog based on advantages for Norton in fundraising and endorsements, and his campaign deemed the closeness of the results a victory.

The big story, however, was on the Democratic side since it marked the first time that Bennet, who was appointed to the office in 2009 by Gov. Bill Ritter (D), stood in front of the electorate. The Bennet forces smartly downplayed the results in advance of Wednesday's vote -- the vote did matter more to Romanoff's chances -- but will almost certainly face several days of negative press following his loss. (Hoping to mitigate that press hit, Bennet released his first television ad of the campaign on Wednesday.)

History is important here, however: Ken Salazar, the most popular Democratic politician in the state, lost the caucuses to someone name Mike Miles but went on to crush Miles in the primary and claim the seat in the general election.

4. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney waded into the contested South Carolina governor's race primary, throwing his support behind state Rep. Nikki Haley in a move rife with 2012 implications.

Romney praised Haley's "conservative record of fighting wasteful spending" and "advocating for smaller, more efficient government." Romney's Free and Strong America PAC will donate to $3,500 to Haley's campaign and participate in an event in the Palmetto State for her on April 1, the PAC announced.

Those close to Romney said that the key factor in his endorsement of Haley was a sense of loyalty -- she had been a supporter of his during the 2008 South Carolina presidential primary. But, no candidate with an eye on a run for president does anything in South Carolina without an eye on the future.

Seen through that lens, there are at least two 2012 motivations we see behind Romney's support for Haley. First, the three other gubernatorial candidates -- Rep. Gresham Barrett, state Attorney General Henry McMaster and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer -- are all being supported by other national figures in the party while Haley lost her high-profile benefactor when Gov. Mark Sanford (and his presidential ambitions) imploded. (Former Sen. Fred Thompson is with Barrett, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is with Bauer and Sen. John McCain is with McMaster.) Given that Romney had no horse in the race, backing Haley gives him a one in four chance of being behind the likely governor -- a vast improvement from the zero percent chance he had prior to the endorsement.

Second, Haley is a favorite of an element of conservatives in the state and by endorsing her Romney affirms his bona fides with that group -- an always-helpful exercise in advance of a presidential primary fight. Romney's political operation -- led by PAC director Matt Rhoades -- is far more advanced than any of his potential 2012 rivals and this endorsement suggests he is moving to exploit that edge.

I just love the hypocrisy I see here. Republicans used 'deem and pass' hundreds of times while they controlled Congress and occupied the presidency. Sometimes just when they controlled congress. Reconciliation is not an 'arcane, sneaky tactic' as the Republicans have charged. It's been around since 1974 and was designed to protect the minority. Reconciliation was more than good enough for the GOP. How do you think Bush's tax cuts were passed? I guess the GOP is saying that it's horrible and unconstitutional if a Democrat uses reconciliation, but it's fine for a Republican.

If one believes Rep. Lipinski - the vote is over - Nancy does not have the votes.

They are not saying exactly who is in the Stupak group.

The thing is, I have not seen much movement in the whip counts in the past three days - the numbers are essentially in the same place - and one has to wonder - Nancy must know the position she is in.

They are making this deal about the CBO score, and how the fixes package might not be done - that all could be an excuse.

The problem is that Nancy does not have the votes - and she could be locked out of having the votes - if there are NO votes 5 over what is needed to block, then there are 15 other NO votes who want to vote NO to make their constituents happy.

The point is comments threads are conversations. They are the communication of ideas, and replies to ideas, and so on. In that regard, they are not intended to run newest to oldest, which is counter to the idea of a conversation.

Sites that don't respect this are essentially disrespecting their users. It sends a message that the conversation is not actually valued, and that comments are merely a means to let unimportant people spout unimportant stuff -- to provide some facade of "dialogue."

There's a reason that the vast majority of sites run comments oldest to newest. You may personally prefer reading in a backward, counterintuitive way, but clearly your preference long ago lost the larger fight.

"Wrong. We need to see the identity if the poster before reading the post, there are too many posting here whose posts we need to skip."

You're kidding me. You actually come to this page and start scrolling downward, half-reading new posts as you go, seeing replies to posts you haven't even read yet, waiting 'til you find something that looks familiar, then start reading up from there, scrolling your way back up... and then when you're ready to reply to something, you scroll all the way back to the bottom to write in the comments box here, then scroll BACK up to the top of the page and do the whole thing all over again?

Seriously? You actually LIKE doing your comments reading that way?

It's not the way blog comments are supposed to work. At least at blogs that don't treat users with contempt.

Intrade is highly susceptible to becoming ASTROTURF - which means interests groups go in there, buy up contracts in hopes to create a sense of where the public opinion is going.

ASTROTRUF can be part of a web strategy - like the paid trolls for Obama on this blog - they aren't giving REAL opinions - they are just giving the pro-Obama point of view - pretending to be ordinary citizens.

So with millions of dollars being spent in this debate on both sides, why wouldn't intrade be a part of the web strategy ???

So you are reading a fake number - a number that has been bought

It is interesting to see the number go up and down - but it is FAKE - it has very little relationship to reality or any probability of anything happening.

Why do the comments here run backwards? It's a horrible way to present a conversation. It is also counter to established web conventions. This is 2010 -- trial and error has already sorted out most of this stuff for us. And one of the things we've settled on is that comment threads should run oldest to newest.

Any blogger who doesn't intuitively understand this is revealing that he does not actually grasp the medium.

The Democrats will have achieved their goals when over half of the nation is completely and utterly dependant on taxes from whatever is left from the shrinking group of working, tax-paying citizens. Then we start over either with the Chinese in charge, or with a new Obamunist manifesto of each according to his ability, each according to his need. Where will the world's huddled masses escape to then?

How do you explain that intrade fell to 35 last night - it fell all day long. ???

You didn't mention that fall - but now you are out talking about the 80 ?

Which is the real situation ??/

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 17, 2010 2:50 PM
---------------------
I don't know, 37th, do you think I walked on water to get here this morning. How do I know why there were some abnormally low trades. Someone got a sweetheart deal? It's a MARKET, for God's sake, buyers and seller meet up and buy and sell.

What I know right now is that Intrade is trading around 70, and has traded nearly 500 contracts between 62 and 80 today. What do I know what happened to a few contracts in the middle of the night? Do you--give us the benefit of your wisdom...

AND, while the Right goes into apoplectic spasms and foams at the mouth over
A;) Reconcilliation

and B;) Deemed passed,

Obama, Pelosi, SEIU, and many other agents of influence are talking, one on one, to far more Democrats that they will actually need and reminding them of all the many reasons they have to vote FOR this particular bill.

When the bills are called to the floor, and the Republicans demand a roll call vote on the Senate Bill without amendments, Just fifteen minutes later that bill, passed with perhaps 220 votes for is on its way to Obama for his signature and the republicans are left trying to respond to the reconciliation part of the process, up for a voter that will also pass. Before just one hour will have passed the HCR bill will be in front of Obama and the reconciliation will be before the Senate, and the House Minority Caucus will be wondering just what just happened.

Pelosi's/Slaughter's attempts to "pass" a bill by bypassing Article 1 Section 7 are violations of their oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution. If they attempt it, they should be expelled from Congress.

People will be enraged for years if Obamacare passes. Enraged as citizens were enraged after Pearl Harbor. Citizens are watching every move, and the Democrats are under the microscope.

"2. Congress' approval rating is starting to approach historic lows in two new national polls, a sign of the growing volatility in the electorate. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- released late Tuesday -- just 17 percent approved of the job Congress is doing while 77 percent disapproved. Since a mid-January NBC/WSJ survey, congressional disapproval has soared by 10 points while approval has dipped by four points. "

Notice that these four questions are never asked, or the results not reported, when approval polls for Congress come up:

Are you of the same party as your Congressman, and your Senators?

Do you approve of the job being done by your Congressman?
Do You approve of the job being done by your Senators?
Do you approve of the job being done by your party's members in Congress?

Those 80% of the people mad at Congress are by and large mad at the OTHER party. So Congress' approval ratings don't mean a whole lot at this point.

The only such poll that would be meaningful would be a district by district poll of 1500 voters in each and every district, not a poll; of 1000 voters "picked at random".

democrats still can't get enough votes for the bill. democrats in swing districts know it is safer to vote no for the bill than yes. the voters will forgive a democrat who votes no. the voters will trash a democrat who votes yes. latest count still shows huge struggle democrats face despite getting kucinich.

If you want a sense of how much this whole process is damaging the Obama administration — the apostles of “hope and change,” you’ll recall — take a look at Robert Gibbs trying to answer whether the “Slaughter Solution” constitutes the kind of up-or-down vote the president promised. It’s almost painful to watch. The unmasking of the Obama presidency continues, one day at a time

In fact, here’s a taste of Jack Cafferty’s latest tribute to Madam Speaker on CNN:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it. Unbelievable…
Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It’s meant to protect Democrats – especially those up for re-election in November – from having to make a tough vote. Pelosi says of this process, “I like it… because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” In Nancy Pelosi’s world, accountability is a dirty word.

The untouched Senate bill is a liability and rightfully so. The House members don't want to pass the default Senate bill to Obama's desk; they want the reconciled version that strips out the BS kickbacks that our pompous "deliberative" body required to earn their vote. This bundles their intent into one motion.

That obvious line of reasoning is much more transparent and worthwhile than any of the 35 times Repubs pulled this stunt in one session of Congress. The bottom line is Americans will end up caring much more about the substance of the bill than the parlor tricks used to eventually get it done. Liberals have been trying to get most of this stuff in the bill accomplished for over 60 years. Are they really going to vote Repub because they used deem and pass to make sure the reconciled Senate bill is what the Pres signs?

The answer is no. No no no no they will not. It's a huge blow to the Republican party.

democrats still can't get enough votes for the bill. democrats in swing districts know it is safer to vote no for the bill than yes. the voters will forgive a democrat who votes no. the voters will trash a democrat who votes yes. latest count still shows huge struggle democrats face despite getting kucinich.

All this hubub about procedures will be moot in two months when this passes and the media will have moved to the next "outrage" to generate ratings. The fact is that the reconciled Senate bill does a lot of good stuff for American citizens and some of the immediate effects are going to bump up the Democrats standings as these efforts are realized by the middle class.

The Repubs know this and they're willing to bring in Leprechauns and Unicorns to the argument if it will prevent passage. They're looking mighty desperate at the moment.

If you want a sense of how much this whole process is damaging the Obama administration — the apostles of “hope and change,” you’ll recall — take a look at Robert Gibbs trying to answer whether the “Slaughter Solution” constitutes the kind of up-or-down vote the president promised. It’s almost painful to watch. The unmasking of the Obama presidency continues, one day at a time

In fact, here’s a taste of Jack Cafferty’s latest tribute to Madam Speaker on CNN:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it. Unbelievable…
Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It’s meant to protect Democrats – especially those up for re-election in November – from having to make a tough vote. Pelosi says of this process, “I like it… because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” In Nancy Pelosi’s world, accountability is a dirty word.

From Maine to Hawaii, Americans send people to Washington, D.C., to be their representatives -- to cast votes that represent the will of the people who elected them to do the job. But now, as the House of Representatives moves toward approving one of the most sweeping pieces of domestic legislation in U.S. history, critics are fuming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to usher through a health care bill . . . without a vote.

The next day, Bachmann suggested that citizens “don’t have to follow” the health care law if it passes using that procedure. "
--------------------------------
Wasn't another of Bachmann's brilliant ideas was telling people not to fill out the census forms because they were part of some left wing conspiracy.

'Last Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) began freaking out that House Democrats are considering the use of a common parliamentary procedure known as either a “self-executing rule” or “deem and pass” to finish health care reform. “If they do that then American citizens have standing to sue against this bill,” said Bachmann on Friday. The next day, Bachmann suggested that citizens “don’t have to follow” the health care law if it passes using that procedure. (In fact, there will be an up or down vote on the bill.)

On Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann went even further by accusing the media of “treason” for “not telling this story” that Speaker Nancy Pelosi “would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on.” Bachmann then suggested that if health care passed through “deem and pass,” it would warrant calls of impeachment:

BACHMANN: Well, yeah, and the other thing is treason media. Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story.

HANNITY: Right.

BACHMANN: That the Speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on.

HANNITY: Yep.

BACHMANN: That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. That’s how bad this is. I mean trust me, Dennis Hastert never could have gotten away with this.

**************************

Bachmann’s outrage is ridiculous. As AEI congressional scholar Norman Ornstein pointed out yesterday, former Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) did get “away with this” when he was Speaker. “In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of deem and pass,” wrote Ornstein."

*******************************
how does a woman this dumb and illiterate get elected?

" . . While all of the parliamentary jockeying is almost certain to be forgotten by voters by this fall (if it was ever noticed in that first place), Republicans want to make sure that targeted Democrats know that they will be held accountable for every nook and cranny of the Senate legislation whether or not they go on the record in support or opposition to it.

2. Congress' approval rating is starting to approach historic lows in two new national polls, a sign of the growing volatility in the electorate. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- released late Tuesday -- just 17 percent approved of the job Congress is doing while 77 percent disapproved. Since a mid-January NBC/WSJ survey, congressional disapproval has soared by 10 points while approval has dipped by four points . . .."

Note:
" . . . the parliamentary jockeying is almost certain to be forgotten by voters by this fall (if it was ever noticed in that first place). . ."?

One wonders if voters' increasing disapproval of congress might not constitute at least indirect evidence that such jockeying has been noticed?

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.

The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his push to rescue the administration's health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away controversial and unpopular industry practices.

Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of "rescission," whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they've been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses.

In his previously undisclosed court ruling, the judge in the Mitchell case also criticized what he said were the company's efforts to cover its tracks.'

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.

So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.

But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.

In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health, part of Assurant Inc, to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongly revoking his heath insurance policy. In September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict, although the court reduced the amount to be paid him to $10 million.

By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry."

Well, off the top of my head, OPEC refused to sell crude oil to us in 1973. De Beers is (in)famous for refusing to sell its diamonds and has a much larger market share of that industry than OPEC. Try reading this:

Posted by: shrink2 | March 17, 2010 1:18 PM
-------------------------------------
Not in this case. Customers in the individual market drop out of coverage, they don't then turn around and buy in as employees.

From 2001 onwards several lawsuits were filed against De Beers in US State and Federal courts. These alleged that De Beers unlawfully monopolized the supply of diamonds and conspired to fix, raise and control diamond prices. Additionally there were allegations of misleading advertising. Whilst De Beers denied all allegations that it violated the law, in November 2005, De Beers announced that an agreement had been reached to settle civil class action suits filed against the company in the United States, and in March 2006, three other civil class action suits were added to the November agreement. In April 2008, De Beers confirmed that Judge Chesler of the US Federal District Court in New Jersey had entered an order approving the Settlement, resulting in a settlement arrangement totaling $295 million USD. De Beers does not admit liability. As part of the settlement, persons who purchased gem diamonds from January 1, 1994 to March 31, 2006 may be eligible for compensation.

The question is what industry refuses to sell a product to customers who want to buy. Of course companies kill product lines to raise the profits/market share of other products. My question is -- what industry walks away from revenue?

Do you really believe that by voting against the HC bill the Dems will earn a reprieve from the Repubs, Please ! They should do whats right and vote for HC change and a grateful America will reward them for it. Why do you think the Repubs are so afraid and against it (other than being paid by big insurance cos to do so) ?
The public will also not care how it is accomplished and Dems can run against the Repubs for being anti America and obstructionist. Throw the bums out !

Barack Obama says he is determined to ram through his healthcare bill no matter what it takes.

And a top beneficiary remains the Homosexual Agenda.

The Homosexual Lobby would never let Obama get away with anything less. And now he’s hatched a plan to exploit Congress’“reconciliation” process to rush this pro-homosexual payback through and foist upon America:

Homosexual “lifestyle” subsidies, which will grant $1,000+ in annual tax breaks to homosexual “couples,” encouraging their "lifestyle" on the taxpayer dime;

Traditional Marriage Penalties, crippling many families with over $10,000 per year in new taxes;

Explicit Sodomy Training Seminars financed by tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, directed at “educating” elementary school students in homosexual sex acts.

This is NOT about health care for the American people, it is about payback and Control of 1/6 of Our economy.

The health insurance industry has decided to abandon the individual market. Insurance companies are refusing to sell insurance, at any price, to people with pre-existing conditions. These conditions include anyone who is taking a drug to reduce cholesterol, having allergies to pollen, ever taken anti-depressants, ever having had surgery, or even ever having been sick.

What other industry refuses to sell a product to customers who want to buy?

It's clear that the insurance industry has given up on the individual market. Now, they are raising premiums in this market by 39% this year to force out even more of these customers. In a few years, there just won't be enough customers in the individual market, and then they'll just drop the rest.

The only market the insurance companies are interested in is the employer market. It's more profitable for the insurance companies to serve employers because they get thousands of customers every time they sell a new employer on their products.

drindl -- It's not just the WP's editorial page, it's the entire newspaper that's been turning into a third-rate political blog over the last year or two. They seem to have simply stopped trying to deliver high-quality journalism (of which there still is some at the the NY or LA Times). It's kind of interesting to see a newspaper with a history being overtaken by blogs in terms of quality of content.

Westlake Hills is a beautiful part of Austin why would they think it is necessarily socially conservative, more likely economic conservatives more worried about their tax cuts then gay rights as you pointed out. Would be interested to know how they voted in the State Board of Education race, that would give you some indication mark.

Basic civics and politics should be mentioned when talking about Bennet vs. Romanoff. I was at the caucus last night and yes the activists Democrats, who are more to the left of average Democrats, were there in higher numbers AS WOULD BE EXPECTED. The only thing this determines is who will be on the top of the ballot for the primary and that isn't a big advantage unless there are a lot of candidates. In the primary the Democrats will be more centrist and in the general election the candidate of the left would have a much worse time than Bennet who is more moderate. The other thing that will be in play is we will know by then if health care reform will be the toxic issue that the GOP want it to be or if it can be framed as the Republicans and their insurance company owners vs. the rest of us.

As many have discussed, the Washington Post recently hired McCarthyite torture apologist and proven liar Marc Thiessen, as an op-ed columnist. To the Post's editorial page, the use of war crimes is open to discussion. To the Post's editorial page, honesty, integrity, and basic human decency are irrelevant.

Now, CNN has joined the Post in legitimizing extremism. They have hired RedState editor Erick Erickson as commentator. This isn't about some myth of political balance. Erickson is not balanced. As explained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman:

Increasingly, public life has become a carnival, a circus, a freak show. Admittedly, it has always had those elements — that’s part of what made it interesting. From the days when speakers gave stump speeches from actual stumps, they knew they had to be entertaining and provocative to hold an audience long enough to get their message across. Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, among many others, knew how to express themselves in ways that brought attention to their cause and to themselves.

But it’s a long way from Henry’s "Give me liberty or give me death" to Erickson’s description of Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a child molester who engages in s*x with goats (although he phrased it much less delicately). Erickson also suggested that President Obama should be sentenced by a death panel and that he got his Nobel through affirmative action. He suggested that voters ought to drag state legislators out of their homes and beat them to a bloody pulp, and defines feminists as women who are too ugly to get a date. His track record of posting unsubstantiated allegations on his blogs also should have been of concern to CNN.

But the critical point is that Erickson wasn’t hired DESPITE those utterances. To the contrary, those utterances got him the job. He is providing what the modern marketplace demands. In that sense, to direct criticism at Erickson is to miss the point: he is not the cause of the illness affecting our public discourse, he is merely a symptom. Political media requires ever-higher levels of conflict, hype and hyperbole to draw eyeballs, and by virtue of personality, Erickson happens to fit the bill."

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 17, 2010 12:34 PM
----------------------
I suspect some are. What's your point? All 8.2 million are illegal? Or that the uninsured are unimportant because some portion of them are illegal?

BTW, according to this study, "In 2007, even before the economy’s collapse, the number of uninsured adults and children in California had reached more than six million, Dr. Lavarreda added.

has yet to be corrected. Tsk, tsk!
=======================================
The Huckabee mention in #4 is resonant here, because he has just endorsed a young social conservative woman lawyer against a local successful businessman for the R nomination to the Lege to run against a two term D. The Lege seat is southwest Austin - it includes Westlake Hills where Michael Dell lives in his 26k sq. ft. home on a hill and is an affluent district. It has never been a socially conservative area although it has been alternately represented by Rs and Ds. I will be interested to see if Huckabee helps, hurts, or makes no diff for the woman who finished second in the R Primary, but made the runoff.

CNN announced Tuesday that they hired Erick Erickson, the editor of RedState, as a political contributor for John King's new show, a show which they've promoted as a doubling down on straight news.

There's a bit of a contrast here. Erickson is, as CNN says, a voice the right side of the Internet listens to. Conservative lawmakers read his site and, occasionally, use it to break news.

But he's also prone to making extreme and sometimes misogynistic public comments.

He's called a Supreme Court justice a "goat-f*cking child m*lester." Last month, he told "ugly" "feminazis" to "return to their kitchens." He's compared an administration official to a Nazi and called First Lady Michelle Obama a "Marxist harpy."

.
love your work, but ...
You do not understand Colorado politics. Top line in the Primary is decided by Assemblies, not by caucuses.
Caucuses merely identify who will get to be delegates to county, District and state assemblies.
.

gvbajb writes: "All this anger is about process and has a shelf life of a few months. The GOP will be identified as the opposition to health care for years to come. [...] When the campaign season starts in earnest the Dems will be pounding these guys."

Well-spoken. Nice to see that some people still have a political brain.

I read the post. Apparently you are unaware that Ben Ginsburg is the GOP's top litigator. Rs for months have threatend to take passage of HC to court if it passes. And precisely who do you think will be lead counsel doing that litigation? I will give you one guess and his initials are BG.

"Republicans seem to think that stopping health care reform will improve their chances in the 2010 elections. At the same time, Democrats say that finally passing comprehensive reform will show the voters that they're the change party they promised they would be, boosting their chances at holding on to their majorities in the House and Senate.

But a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that both sides are wrong...and right. There doesn't seem to be clear a political win -- or loss -- for either side yet, though arguably opinion appears to be tilting slightly in favor of the Democrats.

Oh, and there's more: even after a year of slogging through the health care fight, most Americans still want reform -- and soon."

"Just days before the climactic vote on health-care reform, the "tea party" movement issued an unexpected surrender.

It came Tuesday at the "Code Red" rally across the street from the Capitol, just a few minutes after a man dressed in a Captain America costume served as the color guard for the singing of the national anthem. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), a favorite of the tea partiers, leapt onto a bench to address the few hundred activists. He pressed what he thought was the "on" button on the electronic bullhorn.

But the lawmaker evidently hit the wrong button, because it caused a recorded voice to boom: "You sunk my battleship! You sunk my battleship! You sunk my battleship!"

"Fox News hate-talk show host and practicing Mormon Glenn Beck told his listeners to “run as fast as you can” if they find their church preaching “social justice,” claiming it is a “perversion of the Gospel.” In 1967, Michigan Gov. George Romney — father of Mitt — was the most prominent Mormon politician in the land, seeking the Republican nomination for president. Unlike Beck, Romney considered social justice a core tenet of his faith. In 1967, Jet reported that Romney was willing to choose social justice over the Church of Latter-Day Saints, which then barred blacks from becoming priests:

Michigan Gov. George Romney said he would leave his church if it ever tried to prevent him from working for the elimination of social injustices and racial discrimination."

"wingers are pigs. that's all there is to say about it. disgusting pigs."

Won't you get kicked out of the group?

My friend got a pig for his son, a 4H project. This pig was hilarious, like a comedy act. At the State Fair he was auctioned off and was shunted in with the herd, off to slaughter. My friend (stupidly) called him for the last time and he reared up and tried to struggle back against the mass, screaming. We don't eat dogs, horses or Republicans and we don't need to eat pigs.

"Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized Republicans for feigning indignation over House Democrats’ possible use of a self-executing rule to pass health reform. Noting that House Republicans used the rule more than 35 times in one session of Congress, Ornstein writes, “Is there no shame anymore?”

1bmffwb wrote: My reply is do you know there are approx. 160 million republican\conservatives in America. About half the people. Are you smarter than all of them.
-----------------------------------
Could you please cite a source for half of the population of the U.S. being republican/conservatives? BTW, you are including infants and children in your number.

'Activists staged “competing rallies” outside of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy’s (D-OH) district office yesterday, in a noisy, often confrontational attempt to influence the undecided congresswoman’s vote. At one point, a man with a sign saying he has Parkinson’s disease and needs help sat down in front of the reform opponents. Several protesters mocked the man, calling him a “communist,” with one derisively “throwing money at him .” “If you’re looking for a handout you’re in the wrong end of town,” another man said,'

wingers are pigs. that's all there is to say about it. disgusting pigs.

The support for the public option was never there. The majority of the states did not want the public option. This bill was not popular with that option in there. You had Democrat seneators who would lose their seat if they voted for the public option.
The biggest problem with the bill is that 70% of the American public like the coverage they have. They do not want a reform that would change their coverage to help only 10% of the public who do not have insurance. For 61% of Mainstream voters, cost is the biggest problem, which goes up with a public option.

If Pelosi and her gang use the "deem and pass" manuver to get health reform legislation passed, they are giving us one more, BIG reason, to vote them out of office.

People (the voters), are sick and tired of the inabilities and ineptness constantly demonstrated by the incumbents in the House and Senate (regardless of their party). It's no longer a nation where the Democrats can blame the Republicans for all our problems, or vice versa.

THE PROBLEM WE FACE ARE THE INCUMBENTS. Period. There will be no health reform; no economic recovery; no more bailouts; no more good news until we get the incumbents out of office.

Examine the voting records of your Representatives and Senators (if you can). Make your decisions based on their performance. LET THE INCUMBENTS KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!

Doof, you could not get more demonstratively graphic of the point I was making than pointing out the election outcomes in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. What did I just point out? That for republicans to remain viable, they must move to the center away form the fringes. All three of those election outcomes validate my thesis.

Weren't you guys on the right all over Scott Brown a couple of weeks ago for breaking a GOP filibuster on a jobs bill? And just today, the New Jersey Governor is coming under fire from the right for his actions to get their deficit under control. And Governor MacDonald sounded like a centrist democrat in his campaign, certainly did not invite in any Tea Bag suckers.

If the GOP is to remain viable after 2010, they will have to move away from the Limbaugh-Beck-Palin crowd. Some of them have already gotten that message.

As for the Peter Hart foolishness, Jonathan Chait, an actual analyst rather than R cheerleader, said it best:

"Political scientists understand that structural factors, mainly the economy but also things like wars and midterm elections, tend to drive voter behavior. Pollsters, on the other hand, have an unfortunate tendency to take public opinion purely at face value. And so you get results like this:

'Only 28 percent believe the federal government is “working well” or even works “okay,” versus seven in 10 who think it’s “unhealthy,” “stagnant” or needs large reforms. By comparison, in December of 2000 — during the height of the disputed Bush-Gore presidential election — 55 percent said the government was working well or okay. ...

If you take this result seriously, then you have to think that the government really seemed to be working well in 2000, and that if we had the combination of Bill Clinton, Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert today, people would be about as happy as they were then. Alternatively, you could say that people said in 2000 that the government was working well because we were at the peak of a long cycle of prosperity, and that if Clinton, Lott and Hastert were running the show today, people would still be very unhappy and ready for change. I know which interpretation makes sense to me."

You never addressed 1bmffwb's point that Obama and Democrats are the ones using fear to sell this package. Obama pitted the young against the elderly, the working against the unworking, the govt. against business i.e. insurance companies, banks, car manufacturers, health providers. The Republicans say keep our system and address pre-existing conditions, portability, tort reform and interstate competition. Obama uses fear to say that those thing won't work so we must scrap the system. He has no honor, he has lied repeatedly to the American people on cost, transparency, and process. Not one dime of new taxes, except he forgot to mention he is trying to tax everything from tanning beds, soda pop and utilities (also taking over the student loan industry). He said "no federal funding for abortion". Do you remember ANY of that?

On the election, I do believe republicans will make gains this November. That is traditionally how midterms go for the party that lost the previous election. Whether it will be a 1994 sweep or not is problematic. It could happen. But even if it does, it cannot last for the GOP unless they move in a more dramatic way to the center because that is where most of the country is moving.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 17, 2010 11:46 AM

it will be a sweep. obama will be humbled like clinton. clinton was able to get some things passed because he was forced to take small steps by the republicans. same thing will happen to obama. he will have to work with the republicans not pelosi. hate to say it but that will help obama like it helped clinton. worst thing for obama is to keep majority in congress.

My reply is do you know there are approx. 160 million republican\conservatives in America. About half the people. Are you smarter than all of them.
-----------------------------------
Could you please cite a source for half of the population of the U.S. being republican/conservatives? BTW, you are including infants and children in your number.

Look, I am not a Vulcan but I do see some merit in the way Spock's mind works. And logically, if the republicans and you right wingers on this blog truly believed that voting for this bill was suicide for the democrats, you would not be talking so angrily and acting in such desperation to prevent the bill's passage.

On the election, I do believe republicans will make gains this November. That is traditionally how midterms go for the party that lost the previous election. Whether it will be a 1994 sweep or not is problematic. It could happen. But even if it does, it cannot last for the GOP unless they move in a more dramatic way to the center because that is where most of the country is moving.

Trust me. Conservatism has some huge structural and political problems of its own: They want a smaller government at a time when we have major global and domestic problems that call for more federal government involvement. They want tax cuts at a time when our structural debt and deficit is approaching calamitous conditions. They want a restrictive view of the Constitution that is moving in a direction completely at odds with social, cultural and demographic changes taking place in our society--changes that no amount of ideological posturing can alter.

Democrats this is war. The Republican party wants Obama and his agenda to fail even though he won in a landslide. The Republican party has declared war on the Democrats. They do not give a hoot about passing any meaningful legislation. It is all about getting re-elected in the fall. I think the Dems are finally getting the message...

"Personally, I am opposed to the so called 'deeming' maneuver but not because it is illegal or unconstitutional. I oppose it because it sends a message that the democrats lack the courage that President Obama called for just the other day.

Look. This is just the sort of parliamentary move the republicans would gleefully, shamelessly use to ram through something they wanted. It is just the sort of gamesmanship that President Obama vowed to take us away from.

4. This is a great move by Romney. A Haley endorsement allows him to be connected with the more conservative branch in the party. We should remember though, that Romney had the endorsement of SC Senator Jim DeMint in 2008, and that still didn't help him in SC. A governor's endorsement sometimes goes a long way, however. It basically sealed it for McCain in Florida in 2008 from Crist. Another thing to look at in this primary is that Lyndsey Graham has endorsed State Attorney General Henry McMaster. Will Jim DeMint endorse in this primary? He has huge leverage with the conservative electorate. If DeMint endorses, it will likely not be McMaster or Bauer. He may well endorse Haley and if he does, it could come down to a Haley vs. McMaster primary down to the finish. McMaster is the front runner right now, but Haley seems to have momentum as she has gained the most in the past 2 months. The Republican primary in SC is really going to be a political dogfight til the finish, which is June 08.

Steve681, like most true believers, you tend to see everything in two dimensional terms--black or white, us or them, left or right. For simple minded thinkers like you, there is no gray area, no nuance, not mitigating factors.

This is one of the reasons you are dead wrong in how you evaluate these polls. Of course the media isn't going to help you because they benefit from keepoing Americans in a sort of dummy state where all they can do is hurl insults, bombast and calumny. That is the mother's milk of the mainstream media, not a liberal bias.

Look. Does it ever occur to you that there is a vast well of support in the country for the public option. In virtually every single poll taken, the public option has garnered upwards of 70%. Thus, the logical inference is that as soon as the public option was dropped from the debate, support for health care in general dropped commensurately.

This is one thing these media polls never seem to ever get around to doing: Breaking down the poll numbers, looking for those gray areas, those nuances. Why? Because like you, they are quite happy with their blissfully ignorant, two dimensional view of the world. For the media, such a view is profitable and brings in the ratings. For you, it allows you to engage in the delusion that most Americans think like you.

"I hold the unshakable belief that the good people on the inside of our federal government harbor a special disdain for "partners" who violate human, civil and constitutional rights as they use "national security" as a pretext for a peculiar ideological and social "agenda."

Why are you Republicans fighting so hard to kill the bill. If it is such a bad bill Republicans would want it passed so they could win big in November....It does not pass the smell test. They know if it passes and The American people find out they were being lied to by the Republicans they would be toast in the fall....Where are you going to hide Republicans where are you going to hide...
Posted by: johnnyk1 | March 17, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

If the bill is so good, the democrats would let us see the full bill, ALL that is in it, and not uses tricks to get it passed. They have the majority, but can’t even get enough of their own party to come on board and pass it without bribes and tricks done behind closed doors. That does not sound like a good bill.

"in no way prohibits GOP candidates and party committees from attacking them for "voting" for the Senate legislation."

Rs lie in the political literature all the time. Why in the world would anyone thnk this is news or anything new for the GOP? Why would anyone believe that they would need an excuse to lie. If any D like Stupak were to vote no twice they would still be attacked by the R slime machine in Nov.as supporting HC. Somehow Drier and Ginsburg think that waivering Ds are impressed by their threats.

1 & 2: Congress has rightly taken alot of hits from 2006 on. In 2006, we had a replacement of congress from Republicans to Democrats and Democrats did nothing to gain any type of support from the American people. Obama wasn't the man to turn it all around, and he hasn't. For the sakes of America, hopefully congress won't push through this healthcare bill. It would be a travesty if this bill is passed on a false vote for a rule vs. the bill. If that happens, congress will still be held accountable come November. Unfortunately, if congress passes the bill America will be held accountable for the bill for a failed system for many, many years to come.

3.In Colorodo, Bennett is running tv commercials trying to mitigate his loss yesterday to Romonoff. Bennett leads Romanoff in the most recent poll 40%-34%, still a very wide open primary. The battle between Buck and Norton will also be something to watch, as neither will roll over and let the other win. Two great primaries and one great showdown in a GE to watch in Colorodo coupled with a great governor's race. Also, a few congressional democrats are worried in this state, looks to be a Republican year there in the end but some great fireworks leading up to it.

johnnyk1 - blew what? Healt hcare reform was not number one on the priority list. 1)terrorism, 2) failing economy brought about by liberals who felt everyone should own a home, whether they could pay for it or not, now hardly anyone can. 3)Iraq, 4)Afghanistan 5)South Korea, 6) Iran, not necessarily in that order. Unaffordable health care entitlement not on the agenda and shouldn't be the #1 priority now. Lets try jobs first. Show us what you can do that will save us rather than force us to spend trillions and the CBO says our rates will go up, while service is rationed.

When the Democrats controlled the House: From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995: Under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively).

Here is another example: 36% oppose Reconciliation; 29% support it. Conservatives like Limbaugh love to tout polls like this because it offers limitless opportunities for spin. Of course they never get around to that 35% who do not care one way or the other as long as the bill passes.
Posted by: jaxas70 | March 17, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

What about 43% favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 53% oppose it. And opposition to the health care bill lead to Scott Brown getting elected in the first place. Plus the harder Democrats try to push this through, the more Independent voters they lose. The only ones for this bill is the liberal base of the Democrat party. The numbers do show it. It is not spin, just fact.

By shoving this socialist "transformation" of America down our throats in 2010, Democrats will have finally woken up even the most clueless just what Obama & Co mean to do to our heritage of liberty.

Then, true conservatives will have two whole years to take back the GOP and run on a promise to crush the Democrats and repeal Obamacare in 2012. And once a majority of conservatives capable of repealing Obamacare is in control of Washington, they won't stop there. They'll repeal 50 years of liberalism!

The Mayans were right. The world (as liberals know it) will end in December 2012.

Read a little closer. Ginsberg is not threatening a lawsuit over "deem and pass" (there are plenty of other legal challenges available ranging from procedure on the "shell bill" to substance on the mandate being un-Constitutional). The GOP lawyers are instead making it clear that they actually consider the procedure a VOTE ON THE SENATE BILL. They are putting Dems on notice that GOP campaign literature will state:

"Congresswoman X voted for the Cornhusker Kickback before she voted against it."

johnnyk1:

I never said that TEA Party members are "moderates", and I am not a TEA Party member. My "no" post to you was in regards to your suggestion that I move to Texas.

Why are you Republicans fighting so hard to kill the bill. If it is such a bad bill Republicans would want it passed so they could win big in November....It does not pass the smell test. They know if it passes and The American people find out they were being lied to by the Republicans they would be toast in the fall....Where are you going to hide Republicans where are you going to hide...

Jaked says 44% of Americans want to see Bush back as President? Isn't a better way of saying that, that 56% of Americans don't want to see him come back?

This is the traditional way the right evaluates poll data. It is how they learn it at the laughable Limbaugh Institute for "Advanced Conservative Studies". Now there is an oxymoron of a title. Sounds like an Institute for the Advancement of Morons.

Here is another example: 36% oppose Reconciliation; 29% support it. Conservatives like Limbaugh love to tout polls like this because it offers limitless opportunities for spin. Of course they never get around to that 35% who do not care one way or the other as long as the bill passes.

JakeD2....You made my point. If you think the Tea Baggers are moderates boy you have been in the Kool aide. They are right wing nutcases.....Nice rally yesterday...maybe 300 people.....
Posted by: johnnyk1 | March 17, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"How can anyone take a Republican seriously? They have no idea as to what they are even talking about."

It's not the Republicans the Dems have to worry about, Maddog, it's the majority of American people, who don't want this bankrupting, entitlement-ridden, potentially corrupt system of healthcare the Dems have in mind.

The Republicans are in dreamworld totally disconnected from the realalities of American life. They can't see anything beyond their next election campaign. No wonder they provided us with a financial collapse.
Posted by: Maddogg | March 17, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

The democrats are the ones in the dream world thinking this bill is what the people want. The majority of the country does not want this bill.
And as far as the financial collapse is concerned, that was brought on by the election of the democrat congress Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. They relaxed the lending criteria that led to our economic downfall. Republicans warned them on this. They did not cause it.

johnnyk1 - The President and Democrats are the ones using fear to sell this package. Like you said " It would be suicide not to pass this bill." Obama pitted the young against the elderly, the working against the unworking, the govt. against business i.e. insurance companies, banks, car manufacturers, health providers. The Republicans say keep our system and address pre existing conditions, portability, tort reform and interstate competition. Obama uses fear to say that those thing wont work so we must scrap the system by having it compete with taxpayer funded government programs. In the end he will wipe out competition like he is wiping out congressional rules. He has no honor, he has lied repeatedly to the American people on cost, transparency, and process. Not one dime of new taxes, except he forgot to mention he is trying to tax everything from tanning beds, soda pop and utilities. He's a proven liar. Since I dont agree with his politics that makes me a racist.

Republicans are trying to tell Democrats note to vote for the bill because it will hurt there election chances in November....
Wow,thanks Republicans I did not know you cared so much.......Who are you trying to kid Republicans. If it was such a bad bill you would want it passed so you could win a big majority in the fall...That would be the smart thing to do...It would help you gain votes. Nice try but American people can see how phoney your party is....

The Republicans are in dreamworld totally disconnected from the realalities of American life. They can't see anything beyond their next election campaign. No wonder they provided us with a financial collapse.

It amazes me how people can justify their actions. These rule changes are described as everyday events and objections to them as just being sore losers. Please name me one piece of major legislation that was passed by Republicans that effected 1\6 of the American economy that was passed without a single Democratic vote using either "deem and pass" or "reconciliation". Especially against the will of the majority of the American people. The answer is none. So get off your high horse and admit when youre trying to steal away a system that the public wants to keep. The disgusting thing to watch, are the news video that shows Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Byrd, and Kennedy severely condemning these types of actions. Where is your honor?

Republicans you are done like dinner. Health Reform is going to pass. We just gained another vote Dennis Kusinch. You must be dreaming if you think Dems are not going to pass this bill. It would be politcal suicide and they know it. Your party of fear and smear no longer works. American people have caught on to you. They are no longer afraid. So go away and go back to your dark alleyways and walk in the shadows where you came from...Americans have seen the light and do not want anthing more to do with you....

JakeD2 "last time I checked..." last time you checked what, your change jar, your oil, your "to do "list, you eaves troughs, your blood pressure... you offer no source nor context for your staement that 44% would prefer Bush43 back, which is sooo laughable. Try again, this time with FACTS, sources, etc...that are checkable and valid, not some outfit like Club for Growth poll that has a strong politcal bent to it.

Posted by: katem1
**********************

JakeDuh2 has long since given up on the facts game - it gets into the way of his daily...and I mean, daily narrative. Just hope that tee time starts up for the dude- the fresh air will do him some good.

This health care bill will destroy America. It will put our nation in so much debt; we will never get out of it. It is a health care bill will be UN constitutional because it will make it a requirement for you to purchase health care. The government has no authority to demand that you buy anything.
The longer Obama and the Democrat congress are in power, the more freedom you will lose!

What Republicans have to say doesn't carry much weight. Through their laissez-faire approach to government over the last 30 years they laid the gound and set the rules for American job removal and a giant financial collapse.

How can anyone take a Republican seriously? They have no idea as to what they are even talking about.

My reply is do you know there are approx. 160 million republican\conservatives in America. About half the people. Are you smarter than all of them. Is your IQ the highest, are your accomplishments greater? I think not, so your statement shows how stupid you are as an individual who just happens to be a Democrat. Democrats have been heavily represented by the eight years of Clinton and by the four long years of Carter. The congress has had a large representation by democrats. You personally are a moron. When you want to talk about economic collapse, the catalyst was the guideline changes initiated by Christoper Dodd and Barney Frank, both Democrats. They relaxed the lending criteria that led to our economic downfall, in addition to Republicans allowing too much deregulation. So no matter who is to blame the one thing for sure is government should stay out of business, and not destroy our healthcare system as it did Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, U.S. Postal Service, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Need any more examples?

jaxas, cheer up. Anyone can cite examples of our system failing the country ever since its creation. Democracies are always a mess, the Athenians passed a death sentence on Socrates for corrupting the minds of their youth. Now we have teachers unions so that can't happen.
No hemlock, just rubber rooms.

I just love the concern trolls of the republican party.
Sure, they are just giving advice to democrats as a favor. right.
The problem here is that when the republicans have been in power and were not just using but, abusing these parlimentary proceedures the press and the country could care less.
Now that the democrats are using these same rules everyone is screeching.
How double standard. How hypocritical.
Just as the fact that things like the so-called Cornhusker deal, ect., is seen as oh so horrid.
The press never did tell anyone in the country about the fact that deals like these have been everyday business in passing legislation since the country began.
It's always been this way and is how bills get the votes to pass.
Instead the press pumps up this faux outrage and pretends it is so unusual.
But, then, if the republicans do stuff it's okay. It's just normal.
If the democrats do, then it's hyped as something awful.

But seriously, can someone who knows explain the relative militancy of South Asian lawyers? It was the lawyers in Pakistan whose sacrifice and hard work forced the fall of Pervez Musharraf, the man whom George Bush counted as an ally, the man who provided safe haven for the Taliban, not to mention Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

A " Fix " to get the health care bill through ??? This sort of thing is worthy of
Brazil where Democracy only exists on paper
and where crooked politicians rule as they
wish not according to laws. But as far as I know what prevails in the U.S is the law of
the land. This is one of the reasons why the U.S is a great democracy. Mrs Pelosi should
go to Brazil. Here she would fit in nicely
and be very successful.

A " Fix " to get the health care bill through ??? This sort of thing is worthy of
Brazil where Democracy only exists on paper
and where crooked politicians rule as they
wish not according to laws. But as far as I know what prevails in the U.S is the law of
the land. This is one of the reasons why the U.S is a great democracy. Mrs Pelosi should
go to Brazil. Here she would fit in nicely
and be very successful.

One of the hallmarks of these blogfests is that there is a lot of noise, insult trading, boasting about who will win and who will lose in November, but little in the way of actual hands on solutions to any of the problems that face us. The right believes stupidly that if we just leave all of these decisions up to those wonderful altruistic entrepreneurs and businessmen in the private sector, they will out of sheer goodness and altruism solve our problems and the wealth they create (note that the right does not believe that workers create anything) will pour forth upon the rest of us.

On the other side, the left thinks that if we simply tax the crap out of the wealthy, the investors and the corporations, we can without ever having to cut a single social spending dime, solve our problems and create Nirvana.

Clearly, both the right and the left have had their shot in past governments and administrations and have failed whenever they have tried to implement their respective agendas. So what is the answer? It is clear that a comprehensive overhaul of our entire political, electoral and governmental system is required from tax reform, to electoral reform, to how we finance our campaigns, to how our Congress works and to how the other two branches function as well.

Our system simply doesn't work anymore. We have to seriously question our most basic functions and institutions and I'm not leaving out a new Constitution either because the one we have now is proving itself to be an anachronism and inappropriate mechanism for the 21st century.

As much as I want the bill to pass, to "deem" it is a simply a gutless way to get it through without taking the blame for voting for it if it doesn't work. What I hope to see in the November election is for every imcumbent to be voted out, regardless of their party. Sometimes the devil you don't know is better than the one you do.

What Republicans have to say doesn't carry much weight. Through their laissez-faire approach to government over the last 30 years they laid the gound and set the rules for American job removal and a giant financial collapse.

How can anyone take a Republican seriously? They have no idea as to what they are even talking about.

Either edit the sentence to say "named" or drop the surplus phrase "someone name", please.
=======================
It should be clear to you if you have friends who are committed Rs and Ds that Rs do believe both that this is a bad bill [my R friends are concentrated on the "mandate" as an overreach, but worry about the cost, as well]; and that the public will punish Ds who vote for it. My D friends believe both that this is a good bill, a net money saver over what we have with insurance practices reform, to boot; and that it will hurt Ds more to drop the bill than to pass the bill.
My nearest neighbor D Congressmen are both threatening to vote "no" - although I think Lloyd Doggett will vote "yes" ultimately and Chet Edwards will vote "no" all the way. This will reflect the now strongly held opinions in their districts - Edwards is the D elected from the most R CD anywhere and Doggett represents a liberal CD that wanted a public option.

My points to everyone here:
1] the "other side" believes in its position;
2] each Congressman faces his own quandary;
3] neither side will have a silver bullet; but
4] both believe they do, having heard themselves speak for a year.

I suggest that we recognize that Rs will use D votes to their advantage in some CDs but Ds will use passage to their advantage in some CDs. I suggest the "deeming" of a vote by necessary implication is not meant to give Ds cover in conservative CDs. Edwards will vote "no." It is meant to give Ds cover in liberal CDs. It will allow Doggett to vote "yes".

Then I request that all of you recognize that your own philosophical differences are honestly held on this issue and that calling each other names is ineffective. Better to make your points and debate them recognizing that you will have to agree to disagree about most of them.

JakeD2 "last time I checked..." last time you checked what, your change jar, your oil, your "to do "list, you eaves troughs, your blood pressure... you offer no source nor context for your staement that 44% would prefer Bush43 back, which is sooo laughable. Try again, this time with FACTS, sources, etc...that are checkable and valid, not some outfit like Club for Growth poll that has a strong politcal bent to it.

Look. Let me inject some sanity and realism into this childish food fight.

Barack Obama is a decent, compassionate, young African American who ran for President in 2008 on a campaign the theme of which was change. He also ran on a specific promise to reform America's dismal health care system--a system everyone save for a few harebrained ideologues on the far right fringe, agree is unsustainable in its present form.

Mr. Obama was elected by a 53%-46% majority and with what anyone with a clear-eyed view would call an electoral landslide. The stumbles, mistakes, gaffes and misjudgments he has made so far are little different in quantity and quality from those of his predecessors. His current approval rating of 48%--particularly given the plate of hash he was left by the previous administration--is fairly remarkable in light of all of the negative press and outsized attention paid to his crics, many of who have been dishonest and flat out cranky.

And, again because of a media driven by hunger for ratings and profit who tend to serve more as an echo chamber for President Obama's most bile soaked critics, much of positive value that has already been done in his administration has gotten short shrift. Notwithstanding all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by so many lazy and misinformed American voters, Obama's stimulus bill in all probability saved us from a full bloom depression. Even with a republican party that takes its marching orders from a stupid, uneducated talk show host who has not one lick of experience in the matters he blows forth on every day, Obama has managed to get badly needed reforms through in energy and education.

The truth is that Obama is doing OK. Indeed, he has far better approval numbers than his fellow democrats in Congress. And of all the government and political officials in Washington, the ones getting the lowest approval are the republicans.

This is beginning to be recognized by the media. It was a theme this morning on MORNING JOE on MSNBC. Indeed, I predict health care will pass and I further predict that nex year the media will be looking back and scratching their heads at how wrong the conventional wisdom was in the spring of 2010.

None of the healthcare debate about cost would be an issue if the Bush administration had not jammed an unnecessary tax cut up our butts or failed to properly supervise the banking system. Had we continued on a balanced budget initiative, as Bush inherited from Clinton, a national healthcare plan, as exists in every civilized nation, would be a no brainer.

One does have to wonder why Republicans are so adamant about denying Americans healthcare via an affordable delivery system. Are they really that deeply in the pockets of the insurance companies? Is America in such deep trouble that these politicians can simply flaunt their corrupt ways without fear of penalty? Is that what we are supposed to accept without some form of retaliation against these slimeballs?

America voted for change in 2008. And change is what we should demand and support. Tell the party of NO you've had enough of them.

BigTrees - you are missing the point here. Regardless of your feeling related to the Republicans, does it not seem odd that Congress can "vote" for the passage of a bill without even voting?

These are elected officials, who have made commitments to vote for the interests of their constituents. If they feel that this plan is in the best interest of their constituents, they should have no problem going on-the-record for a vote for it.

margaretmeyers ~ informed sources say you people are misconstruing the reconciliation process as being the same as "The Slaughter Rule".

It's not the same.

You try "The Slaughter Rule" you may be signing your political death warrant, and could have armed revolt on your hands. There are, after all 24 million unemployed and quite desperate people out there and they don't think it's at all funny that you people fiddle with violating the Constitution when you should be trying to foster job growth.

"Citing an assertion from Rules Committee ranking member David Dreier (Calif.) that "a vote for the rule is a vote for the Senate bill," the group wrote: "We believe it is accurate to state in public communications that the effect of a vote for any rule illustrated in [Dreier's memo] is a vote for the Senate bill and all of its provisions.""

--------------

Does it follow that a no vote is a vote against the bill and all of it's provisions? And wouldn't it be true that both "principles" apply to all bills, sic, you're either for everything in the bill or against everything in the bill.

If Sen Mitch McConnell, for example, voted for an appropriations bill, then that means he's for every line item in the appropriations bill?

The truth is that no matter what the Democrats do or don't do, the GOP will criticize them for it.

Even if it doesn't pass the GOP will criticize them for not doing that either.

When Sen. McConnell arranges a filibuster for a Judicial nominee that is finally voted for unanimously by the Senate you know that the goal for the Republicans is to achieve a dysfunctional government.

Look, you think you're in line for a goody bag that will cost you nothing but tax the bejesus out of me ~ YOU ARE WRONG

Been around a while and definitely know that gaming the system is the way to go. Your goody bag will be delivered to my door step. Your taxes, but not mine, will go up. Your kids will stand in line. My kids will get special treatment thanks to my foresight in getting to know the scheduling clerks.

While you stand there dumbfounded at being the last in line everywhere you go, I'll be in and out of places and sitting in fine restaurants sipping champagne.

While I'm at it, and since I have the leisure for such things, I'll see that President Goober sticker on your car "hopey changy, you'll get mangy", and my keys will just pop into my hand and trace a path from your headlights to your tailights.

Republican "scare tactics" ~ first one ~ you mess with the Constitution we mess you up.

One does hope they heard that one because it's true.

Eventually the Democrats are out of power, the real people come out from cover, and they begin taking back their country a block at a time ~ kind of like the Occupied Nations did Western Europe as the Nazis were driven out of power.

Well, anyway, more or less like that ~ but we are far more sophisticated than the Europeans. All they did was shave women's heads. We can cut off their botox!

Moonbat...More fear and smear. If you do not like the rules then like you told the Dems... America love it or leave it. Tired of you crybabies always complaining. You did not complain when Bush rammed through a 1.7 Trillion dollar tax cut....When you are in power everything is okay...out of power nothing but Whiners....

"Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the second-ranking Republican in the House, said modern-day Democrats are using "gimmicks" to bend the rules. Republicans, however, have often made use of the deeming resolution themselves -- 36 times in 2005 and 2006, when they controlled the lower chamber."

JakeD2 ...You do not think it is a scare tactic what the Republicans are doing today...Death panels....Since you are an independent you must know this Healthcare bill is similar to the one supported by Bob Dole and Howard Baker as the Republican alternative to the Clinton one. The Republicans have made a sharp right turn. They are the ones using scare tactics. They are the ones saying it is a government run Healthcare. They are the ones who have over 100 of their amendments in the bill and do not even support them(They want to start from scratch). Let's get the facts straight.....Repubs do not want to work with Dems they are only interested in gaining power in November it is obvious to see.
Posted by: johnnyk1 | March 17, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

That is not true at all. When Obama held his fake health care summit at the white house, Republicans were willing to put together a bi partisan bill with the Democrats. They were willing to start from scratch and put together a real bi partisan health care bill. Obama and Pelosi were not willing to do that.

Please read a history book or two (such as who filibustered the Civil Rights Act ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 17, 2010 8:48 AM

============

Sen Byrd. But it hardly tells the whole story. ....

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

jaxas70...You are getting desperate......It will pass. Dems are toast in the fall if it doesn't pass. Reps rammed through there agenda under Bush and dems have every right to do the same. The only difference is they tried to bring Repubs along...It was a waste of time. The party of fear is not interested. They are being run by Tea baggers...By the way where was this big tea party rally yesterday. Where were there supporters. They did not come out. I guess the new Coffee party has got them worried. Tired of the right wing nutcases saying only they represent America values....Many Americans are tired of the same...

Oh, right. If the Democrats actually voted on the health care bill the Republicans would in no way try to obstruct it, and would not attack the vote on the campaign trail... I'd ask how stupid the they think Democrats are if not for the fact that it's probably working because democrats can be pretty stupid. I mean, if they still haven't realized that Republicans aren't acting in good faith they never will.

heard on the radio this morning Whitman takes a three point lead over Brown here in california. good thing. brown is ancient and needs to be retired - like mccain. should keep getting better for republicans all across country.

JakeD2 ...You do not think it is a scare tactic what the Republicans are doing today...Death panels....Since you are an independent you must know this Healthcare bill is similar to the one supported by Bob Dole and Howard Baker as the Republican alternative to the Clinton one. The Republicans have made a sharp right turn. They are the ones using scare tactics. They are the ones saying it is a government run Healthcare. They are the ones who have over 100 of their amendments in the bill and do not even support them(They want to start from scratch). Let's get the facts straight.....Repubs do not want to work with Dems they are only interested in gaining power in November it is obvious to see.

Moonbat, you sound childish when you sling puerile insults at the President. He is the President of the United States for God's sake! You may not agree with his policies. You may criticize his agenda. But, making asinine statements like "he is a joke" around the world marks you as nothing more than a silly, pi$$y little brat angry over the fact that the "heroes" he supports aren't in charge of things anymore.

JakeD2.......It was introdudced by President John F Kennedy a Democrat in June 11th,1963....Civil Rights act was passed by Lyndon B Johnston a Democrat. I repeat it took courage to do this. Why do you think the South votes Republican today. Why do you think over 90% of the Blacks vote Democratic.

Personally, I am opposed to the so called "deeming" maneuver but not because it is illegal or unconstitutional. I oppose it because it sends a message that the democrats lack the courage that President Obama called for just the other day.

Look. This is just the sort of parliamentary move the republicans would gleefully, shamelessly use to ram through something they wanted. It is just the sort of gamesmanship that President Obama vowed to take us away from.

Just muster up some testicles and vote for the damn bill democrats. I bleieve the people will reward you for that.

I am not a Republican, so you'd do well to start worrying about Independent voters. It is not a "scare tactic" to point out that government entitlement programs ALWAYS end up costing more than projected. Now, do you know who filibustered the Civil Rights Act? Then guess how much Medicare, or Social Security, was projected to cost.

I agree with opinionpieces. This is political jujitsu at its finest. While the GOP is looking at the next 7 months the Dems are looking at the next 20 years. M McConnell stated they would campaign against this to overturn it...yeah right. Give insurers the right to decline sick people that have paid them premiums. You could actually see Axelrod try to hold back his excitement of the GOP falling into that hole. Team Obama for all the missteps is still way ahead of the GOP on this. All this anger is about process and has a shelf life of a few months. The GOP will be identified as the opposition to health care for years to come. They are likely to fall into the same trap with Latinos over immigration reform....and they should worry about how close to bailed out banks they look over financial reform. When the campaign season starts in earnest the Dems will be pounding these guys.

If the Republicans are preaching doom for the Dems in public, they are probably preaching doom for themselves in private. They know they trying to kill it for their survival.

They still don't have 216 votes. Still waiting for the actual sidecar bill language and CBO score. Wanna bet we don't get 72 hours to read the bill? Didn't Obama set his latest "deadline" as March 18th?

Also: "... with 47 percent saying they preferred a generic Democratic candidate and 44 percent choosing a generic Republican. The closeness, however, is a significant change from Gallup's last tracking poll in advance of the 2006 midterm election where 51 percent chose a generic Democratic candidate and 40 percent opted for the generic Republican."

These 4 percent are a "significant change" in your opinion? Compared to a poll that was taken *four years ago*?! According to the Washington pundits, Democrats have supposedly been in the doghouse with health care for at least the last three months now, but if you look at the actual polls you find that they enjoy the same level of support as they did before the 2006 elections, a which was a huge landslide for Democrats. I mean wake up, people of the press, aren't you supposed to be politically savvy or at at least minimally perceptive, working for the Washington Post and all. If Democrats pass health care, they are setting themselves up for a decisive win this November. Republicans are understandably running scared and trying every last desperate trick to stop this.

Republicans know once Healthcare care is passed they will never be able to amend it. People will be outraged. When Medicare passed in the 1960's Republican's used the same fear tactics back then. It took courage by the Dems to pass the Civil rights act. It took courage by the Dems to pass the Medicare bill and it will take courage to pass the final Healthcare bill by the Dems. The Dems were on the right side of history back then and are on the right side of history now. It is the right thing to do...

The GOP and their teabagger tools can go wet their big diapers in the corner. We need to get this done!

Why try to work with these scared, ignorant, hateful people?:

Video shot by the Columbus Dispatch from today's Honk and Wave in Support of Health Care at Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy's district office contains a segment wherein the teabaggers mock and scorn an apparent Parkinsen's victim telling him "he's in the wrong end of town to ask for handouts", calling him a communist and throwing money at him to "pay for his health care".

The republicans have used this procedure many times in the past. They were for it when they were in power,against it out of power and will be for it again if they ever get back into power. They are Hypocrites. Health care will pass and they will be running for the hills with their leaders at the head of the pack after the American people find out they have been lying about Healthcare all this time...

If the right wing John Bircher kook jobs that comprise what was the Republican Party make this tactic necessary via continuous attempts to disenfranchise the majority and impose the will of the minority, I say, more power to the Democrats!

Too bad the bill was essentially written by the insurance companies, and they couldn't have shown the same resolve with respect to Medicare for All.

It remains a reliable rule of thumb that if Republicans are against it, it's good for America. Haven't seen that violated yet -- not one single time -- save maybe renaming a post office.

Read a little closer. The GOP lawyers are making it clear that they consider a "deem and pass" rule a VOTE ON THE SENATE BILL. They aren't going to challenge that in Court (there are plenty of other legal challenges ranging from procedure on the "shell bill" to substance on the mandate being un-Constitutional). They are putting Dems on notice that GOP campaign literature will state: "Congresswoman X voted for the Cornhusker Kickback before she voted against it."

#4-Romney doesnt' seem to get it that the traditional strategy to garner support that he used last time and is repeating now doesnt work in this day and age. To win a primary you have to be able to catch lightening in a bottle and use that to your advantage (See Obama's entire rise to power, and the Palin pheneomenon). Romney on the other hand see's lightening then hires a consulting team to craft a way to catch it, another desing team to make the bottle, an ad team to sell the bottled lightening, and finally a marketing expert to tell him where he went wrong when it doesn't work.
He is the definition of calculated and phony, IMO, and the electorate can see right through him, Especially the voters in Iowa and NH who have seen every trick in the book.

#5-Ehrlich doesn't have a snowball's chance to beat O'Malley, and Mikulski are you serious? She would wipe the floor with him and he knows it. She won with 65% of the vote in 2004 no less.

More recently, deeming resolutions have been used by Republicans 36 times (since 2005-06), and by Democrats 49 times (in 2007-08). Sounds to me like a precedent. It's perfectly legit. The GOP lawyers can holler all they want. They know it's legit.

#1-Why should I care at ALL what a bunch of lawyers that work for a national party have to say?

#2-It should be pointed out that for all the chest beating the GOP has done they still consistently fall behind the Dems in the general election question. That doesn't bode well for them come November.

#3- I think it is just as interesting that Buck the TP-candidate may knock off Norton in the GOP causus, as the Bennet defeat is. IF (and this is a big IF) Buck wins the GOP primary you can forget Colorado switching sides. There are alot of the red-meat right wingers in CO springs, but there a lot more moderates in Denver who won't vote for Buck. THis may end up being a less talked about Rubio-Crist type situation.

"The letter [...] is a reminder that GOPers believe the health care bill -- no matter the outcome of the vote later this week (or weekend) -- is something close to a silver bullet for them in the coming midterm elections."

Obviously, the Republicans believe no such thing. They are scared to death that Democrats may actually pass health care because they know that this would give Democrats a tremendous political advantage going into the midterm elections. Republicans know full-well that, if Democrats pass health care, Republicans are done for in the elections. So they are bluffing to try to prevent passage. How naive does the press have to be to report an obvious, desperate, bluff by the Republican kittens as though they really believed that health care would damage Democrats in the elections?

Democrats stop being so indiscisive - make a decision and stop allowing the media and the Republican party the opportunity to brower beat the issue. It does not matter if you vote for the bill or not; the Republicans plan to drive this issue in the November elections. The longer you hesitate the longer they have to turn the public opinion. I am sick of hearing about this bill - TAKE A STAND AND VOTE!

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the second-ranking Republican in the House, said modern-day Democrats are using "gimmicks" to bend the rules. Republicans, however, have often made use of the deeming resolution themselves -- 36 times in 2005 and 2006, when they controlled the lower chamber.

Living proof the are Liars and Hypocrites. BTW. Over 70 percent of Americans want a health care overhaul, the bought and paid for press always fail to point that out

American citizens, we tried to warn you about Obama. He's everything his friends are, which are radical leftists. He's going to do more to destroy the democRAT party than I could ever dream of. CHEERS!!